rovert Posted October 19, 2010 Report Share Posted October 19, 2010 WWE taking a page from Harvey Milk: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
artDDP Posted October 19, 2010 Report Share Posted October 19, 2010 WWE taking a page from Harvey Milk: Is someone urging their sponsors to boycott again? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingus Posted October 19, 2010 Report Share Posted October 19, 2010 No, it's a preventative defensive measure disguised as a manufactured grass-roots movement. It's said that Blumenthal's people have finally learned most of the real bad insider dirt on the McMahons (my mental image is a room full of interns poring over stacks of old Observer back issues), but the Democratic campaign managers are holding it back as an ace up their sleeve in order to really zap Linda with some of the worst stuff right before the election. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sek69 Posted October 19, 2010 Report Share Posted October 19, 2010 No, it's a preventative defensive measure disguised as a manufactured grass-roots movement. It's said that Blumenthal's people have finally learned most of the real bad insider dirt on the McMahons (my mental image is a room full of interns poring over stacks of old Observer back issues), but the Democratic campaign managers are holding it back as an ace up their sleeve in order to really zap Linda with some of the worst stuff right before the election. That makes sense, I wondered why Vince/WWE was all of a sudden so hellbent on "correcting the misinformation" reported about them. I wonder what political people consider as the real bad stuff. I'm hoping it leads to stories about Vince having coke-fueled orgies or some other outlandish behavior that would be entirely expected of him. Of course, knowing how it usually ends when Democrats try to go on the attack it will probably be some Earth shattering development like "our research shows the Doink character may have been played by more than one person. WHAT IS LINDA TRYING TO HIDE FROM AMERICA???" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Slickster Posted October 19, 2010 Report Share Posted October 19, 2010 Just quote from his Playboy interview. I wonder how many hours a day Jerry McDevitt is working until the election. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
artDDP Posted October 19, 2010 Report Share Posted October 19, 2010 Sek, I lol'd first thing in the morning. Slickster, do you know if there's a full copy of the McMahon Playboy interview available online? I found a website that was posting it in segments yet seemed to stop after two. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Slickster Posted October 19, 2010 Report Share Posted October 19, 2010 I've never been able to find it online in full, unfortunately. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt D Posted October 19, 2010 Report Share Posted October 19, 2010 http://pwchronicle.blogspot.com/2005/11/in...hon-part-1.html I wish we lived in a world where Pro Wrestling Chronicle had gone on for more than the few months it was running. What a great site. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomk Posted October 19, 2010 Report Share Posted October 19, 2010 This Stand Up for the WWE seems like a really bad idea. Did they not hire a real political consultant? Are they doing everything in house? I imagine the kind of WWE fan who will respond to this ad campaign is exactly the kind of WWE fan you want to hide from public view: Dear Assclown Editor, Your article was unfair to the WWE and so I will “Stand up for the WWE”… I’d also like to correct where your article ignores the way women are programmed as I know some truths…and let me tell you about the Jews… Sincerely, Showmeyourpuppies420 If there is a political lesson to be learned from Glen Beck's rally in DC, it is telling your supporters to refrain from making their own signs is key to controling your message. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rovert Posted October 19, 2010 Report Share Posted October 19, 2010 http://search.twitter.com/search?q=standupforwwe eep Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdw Posted October 20, 2010 Report Share Posted October 20, 2010 When this is over, we need to figure out which pissed away more of Shane, Steph and Trip's inheritance: the XFL or Linda running for the Senate? John Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sek69 Posted October 20, 2010 Report Share Posted October 20, 2010 When this is over, we need to figure out which pissed away more of Shane, Steph and Trip's inheritance: the XFL or Linda running for the Senate? John My understanding is that NBC took the majority of the lumps for the XFL, all things considered WWE probably lost more money on stuff like their restaurant closing (which if my memory of WON back issues is correct, wiped out most of what would have been their highest profit year). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sean Liska Posted October 20, 2010 Report Share Posted October 20, 2010 NBC and WWE split the XFL losses. I think it ended up being in the 60-70 mil range for WWE, which pretty much wiped out their biggest year ever. The new Observer says Linda's campaign will probably end up costing around $50 mil. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdw Posted October 20, 2010 Report Share Posted October 20, 2010 I don't think the restaurant was that much of a killer. The XFL losses were large, and Sean's numbers are in line with what I recall: $50M+. John Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ditch Posted October 20, 2010 Report Share Posted October 20, 2010 Something like the restaurant is with pre-tax money. Linda's campaign is post-tax. So that's something. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdw Posted October 21, 2010 Report Share Posted October 21, 2010 XFL is a little tough to put a clear number on the losses. The FY ending 4/2002 financial statements toss out number right around $50M. Someone with a background on sifting through how the bodies get displayed and buried in financial statements would be better suited for cutting through the numbers. Companies use losses to reduce taxes. The WWE also sold then repurchased $30M in shares each from NBC and Viacom, the repurchase being as a loss of around $3M each... but they also can use accounting methods to lessen the loss there, such as recouping it through taxes in what otherwise were great financial years for the WWE. So the true, net, post-taxes loss to the compay is... harder to put a number on. That said, I've kind of hammered the point over the years that the folly of the XFL came at a time when the WWE had its maximum credibility in the entertainment/financial world as a Entertainment Company. Revenues were sky high and growing. Ratings were strong and a fixture of success on cable. They were the entity holding up the PPV industry. While not everything they touched turned gold (WWF Resturaunt), most of it did... and the failures largely were out of the eye of the entertainment/financial movers and shakers. How much cred at the time? The got NBC and Viacom to invest in the XFL and fork over $60M for WWF stock. The XFL was always doomed to fail, but the WWF had enough cha-ching at the time to sucker those two in. The WWF could have much better used that lost money, investment potential (be it NBC, Viacom or someone else in the TV entertainment business) and cha-ching to create that they really needed at the time and since: a WWE Channel. We've talked over the years at the cost involved in that, but at the time of the XFL there were major players wanting to partner with the WWF on doomed businesses. New cable channels at the time weren't exactly doomed businesses. I've always thought that the "losses" related to the XFL are much more than the direct losses on the division. They took away money, resources, focus and company credibility from other ventures that could have been profitable for the company in the long run, and an benefitial to the operations of their WWF businenss. John Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ditch Posted October 21, 2010 Report Share Posted October 21, 2010 Fantastic point. Certainly it re-directed/wasted more overall company resources than did WWF NY or Linda for Senate. The *opportunity* cost was exceptionally high. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeCampbell Posted October 23, 2010 Report Share Posted October 23, 2010 Voters in CT can't wear WWE clothing because it supposedly constitutes political marketing. Maybe it's just me, but I think that's ridiculous and almost borderline discrimination. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
artDDP Posted October 23, 2010 Report Share Posted October 23, 2010 Does this mean voters in California can't make eBay purchases? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingus Posted October 23, 2010 Report Share Posted October 23, 2010 It's not discriminatory, it's an ancient rule. You can't advertise or shill for a candidate within a certain distance of the polling location. That's why all the old folks with their party signs and lawn chairs are always a discrete distance away from the voting booths; the law says they can't come any closer. And it's hardly a stretch to consider the WWE name as being inextricably linked to the woman who was its CEO for fifteen years and is still married to the controlling stockholder. Linda's press machine will whine about it, but it's an absolutely fair ruling. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goodhelmet Posted October 23, 2010 Report Share Posted October 23, 2010 Does this mean voters in California can't make eBay purchases? No, it means they can't wear ebay t-shirts. I never agree with Jingus... but today I agree with Jingus. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
artDDP Posted October 23, 2010 Report Share Posted October 23, 2010 I agree with him, too. I didn't actually read the link above, I just misinterpreted the post. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Evans Posted October 24, 2010 Report Share Posted October 24, 2010 I guess the rules are different in Florida. I remember during the 2008 elections, people were coming in wearing Mccain buttons and shirts while voting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sek69 Posted October 24, 2010 Report Share Posted October 24, 2010 WO is all over Vince whining about this when the company routinely confiscates signs at the door at most WWE events. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted October 24, 2010 Author Report Share Posted October 24, 2010 Not that I disagree with the ridiculousness of Vince's point, but I don't see what confiscating signs at a wrestling event has to do with this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.